Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

11-16-2011 09:07 AM

CheeseForSteeze

The problem I see with this issue is it has yet to really be defined, and until we can do that, taking gross action which can greatly effect human culture seems like an immature decisions.

What needs to be established is how much "warming" is tolerable, what human processes contribute most to it and what can (realistically) be done about it? There are plenty initiatives for increasing human sustainability in terms of industrial processes but no one has taken a shot at looking quantitatively as to what can be done prevent warming from reaching intolerable levels.

I think that is what skepticism encompasses, not arguing about empirical data without any context or meaning by itself, excepting data which was erroneously gathered.

Here's the thing. If the Koch bros stand up and say there's no AGW issue, that provides no information because that's exactly what you'd expect them to say, regardless of the facts. But if they stood up and said "OMG, it's REAL! We SEE IT!" You'd sit up and take notice because that's going against type. If WB says "there's no problem with the tax laws as they are" it wouldn't mean diddly, but if he stands up and says "The tax laws need an overhaul. People like me are able to pay less taxes than my receptionist" then I'd say you either provide a realistic motive for him to do that, or accept that there may actually be a problem.

Other than that, WB doesn't really enter my sphere of awareness.

So when Warren Buffet calls higher estate (death tax) or even any sort of estate/inheritance tax, his intentions seem to be wanting to fairly redistribute wealth, while his underlying intentions are Greed. One of his major sources of income comes from life insurance policies to business owners. They are forced to fork over high premiums for there family to collect so when they die, their family will have enough to cover the tax burden 15% of a business worth 1Million say. That's 150k in taxes to the beneficiary. The complication in this is that they have to come up with the funds, OR sell their newly inherited estate. And Warren comes in and low balls them to buy out the state.

Income tax is the most destructive way to raise revenue, not counting the hidden "inflation tax."

The Koch Brothers and Warren Buffet are polar opposites when it comes to morality; there is no comparison. What Microsoft is doing is just like what Exxon and Chevron have done; they have a political agenda and then warp the science to fit their agenda. Yes this happens on the other side of the GW debate too, but not to the extent that the corporatists do it and certainly not for the same intent. When the GW "alarmists" skew data it is usually out of passion for the cause, not to make obscene personal wealth. If the Alarmist turns out wrong, we spent a little more than we needed and end up with a cleaner planet. If the denier turns out to be wrong we end up dead.

Overall, I find it criminal when science gets politicized like this whole climate change research has.////

Although they are not a cookie-cutter contrast, their similarities should be considered by both camps. They both are deceptive in their actual intentions.

We have protectionist laws that favor some companies over others, I agree there, that is corporatism and needs to be ended. We have energy companies buying up patents for no reason other than to make sure alternative energy is scare and impractical to develop. Copyright and patent law is an anchor to development and innovation. We would likely have viable, renewable, clean energy by now if it wasn't for the hurdles government throws in the way of development and competition and we likely wouldn't be all that concerned with GW as a product of Humans.

Also, finally, typically when someone disagrees with some points or another of man made global warming, the fanatics typically label dissenters as deniers rather than skeptics which is more accurate and neutral, whereas denier is negative. I'm glad you are one of the few who can differentiate.

The Koch Brothers and Warren Buffet are polar opposites when it comes to morality; there is no comparison. What Microsoft is doing is just like what Exxon and Chevron have done; they have a political agenda and then warp the science to fit their agenda. Yes this happens on the other side of the GW debate too, but not to the extent that the corporatists do it and certainly not for the same intent. When the GW "alarmists" skew data it is usually out of passion for the cause, not to make obscene personal wealth. If the Alarmist turns out wrong, we spent a little more than we needed and end up with a cleaner planet. If the denier turns out to be wrong we end up dead.

Overall, I find it criminal when science gets politicized like this whole climate change research has.////

I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. Even if there are flaws with the science, data collection etc, in the end, why take that chance? We may very well not be responsible and it is a natural pattern of climate change, but why take that chance? We have the technology and ability to put our energy needs in more harmless types of energy generation.

The oil won't last forever, let's not pretend that it will and if oil companies are unwilling to adapt and change like many other businesses are required to when their product is outdated or too expensive to manufacture, then that's their own fault. These companies have extremely large profits and still request government subsidized funds for research and drilling which I find ludicrous. If we invested all this energy and time to making this process of changing our energy sources move along rather than fighting it every step of the way so that these corporations can keep their status quo, we could have had this done already.

Edit: And why the hell is Microsoft throwing money at this garbage? How much are they paying to sponsor this? How many people could they have hired for the same price? We do have an employment problem in the country, hire some people instead of throwing money for some name recognition at garbage like this. Damn we know what the hell Microsoft is already!

Also, if you are willing to say fuck the Koch brothers hopefully you you are on the same page to say the same about Fuck Warren Buffet. As you may know they both profit from policy they lobby and encourage.

Warren Buffet called derivatives weapons of mass destruction and agreed they have no social worth and should be outlawed. The Koch brothers lobby for less regulation to create more of them.

Also, if you are willing to say fuck the Koch brothers hopefully you you are on the same page to say the same about Fuck Warren Buffet. As you may know they both profit from policy they lobby and encourage.

Here's the thing. If the Koch bros stand up and say there's no AGW issue, that provides no information because that's exactly what you'd expect them to say, regardless of the facts. But if they stood up and said "OMG, it's REAL! We SEE IT!" You'd sit up and take notice because that's going against type. If WB says "there's no problem with the tax laws as they are" it wouldn't mean diddly, but if he stands up and says "The tax laws need an overhaul. People like me are able to pay less taxes than my receptionist" then I'd say you either provide a realistic motive for him to do that, or accept that there may actually be a problem.

The term denier is thrown around too much. What about us skeptics who rightfully questions methodology and incentives of scientists? Throwing the term denier around at anyone who doesn't 100% agree with man made global warming is throwing a negative connotation on another person's opposing views. Much like calling global warming believers as alarmists.

I have a specific meaning for a denialist, and it's not limited to AGW. Maybe this meaning is just in my head, in which case my bad. But to me, a denialist is someone who is absolutely, positively, 100 % sure of something, without having enough evidence to be able to realistically take that stance, and dismisses any counterargument usually with ridicule. This could apply to any number of subjects. Note being 100% sure of something isn't enough to be a denialist. Just having someone disagree with you isn't enough. But yeah, it's quite possible to start labelling people denialists just because they've failed to concede your argument. Of course it's possible to heap any number of insults on someone for that "crime".

I know people who don't believe that AGW is the problem that the AGW lobby claims, but I don't consider them denialists because A) They admit to not being 100% sure, B) They admit that there is evidence in favour of AGW, and C) they are willing to discuss the issue, concede the occasional point, etc.

Of course in the case of AGW, you've got people being hired by the Koch bros to be denialists, and I make no apology for holding those people in contempt.

11-11-2011 06:05 PM

Frank101

The term denier is thrown around too much. What about us skeptics who rightfully questions methodology and incentives of scientists? Throwing the term denier around at anyone who doesn't 100% agree with man made global warming is throwing a negative connotation on another person's opposing views. Much like calling global warming believers as alarmists.

That being said, I don't dispute the climate has factually been increasing by a marginal amount over the last 100 years, however I am not convinced that it is solely human caused or that humans are a main cause of extremes in weather patterns currently faced. I can't stand how people look at Al Gores movie as absolute fact even though he was being intellectually dishonest in a lot of his points. Not saying everyone who believes the science of climate change also believes everything coming from Al Gore as well, but it makes me wonder what his intentions were then and now.

Also, if you are willing to say fuck the Koch brothers hopefully you you are on the same page to say the same about Fuck Warren Buffet. As you may know they both profit from policy they lobby and encourage.

11-04-2011 08:16 PM

Donutz

This is actually good news. The more denialism can be identified as right-wing-nut-job dogma, the less credibility it has (not that it has a lot to begin with).

11-04-2011 06:17 PM

Extremo

Microsoft funding climate change denial conference

Does anyone else find this retarded? And do the Koch grifters really need donors?